Analysis of the Nimitz UAP encounter

[UncleDave]

Interesting info from the report....

Speed, acceleration, and power characteristics can be calculated based on statements
from two navy personnel who observed the radar tracks of the “Tic-Tacs” in real time. The
Senior Chief in charge of radar took notes while observing the radar in the CIC area, and noted
that his equipment indicated that the object moved from 80,000+ feet to 20,000 feet in 0.78
second. A second man, the Petty Officer stationed in the same room at the same time as the
Senior Chief, characterized the erratic movements of the objects from stationary at 80,000 feet to
stationary at 20,000 feet on radar as “as fast as a thought.” Calculations based on these
observations, 60,000 vertical feet in 0.78 second and an initial and final velocity of zero, and
assuming a constant acceleration (linear velocity) changing to a deceleration midway, yield a
maximum velocity of 104,895 mph at the midway point, and an acceleration of 12,250 g-forces
(see Appendix G). If one of the navy's jets of a similar size (F/A-18F at 18 tons) accelerated at
this rate, it would need 90 gigawatts of power.
These numbers are nonsensical to any known aircraft; one would expect to see a fireball
due to air friction at those speeds and one would not anticipate any known aircraft to remain
structurally intact with such large g-forces. We examine these characteristics from a second and
third set of data to compare with the above results. This is done in Sections 3.2 and 3.3



Link to the report.

 

[Malo83]

Crazy!

 

[Propflux01]

Watch, it ends up being a housefly on the radar!

 

[samven]

You had to know there were UFO's out there as soon as the experts said it was impossible. In all of history when the conventional wisdom and experts said Not Possible they were proven wrong. No Credible scientist or astronomer ever uses the word Impossible.

 

[Astro14]

If the data (altitudes, times, etc.) is accurate, then the acceleration is amazing.

Still not buying the accuracy of the data...

 

[UncleDave]

If the data (altitudes, times, etc.) is accurate, then the acceleration is amazing.

Still not buying the accuracy of the data...

It's pretty unbelievable, but these are some of our best guys and some of, if not our best gear.


Its interesting to learn that a single composite presentation can be created from all the different radar sources in the fleet
That's quite a piece of code and from an engineering standpoint I have many questions...

It would seem that the equipment was indeed functioning correctly and that many eyes and equipment saw the same thing.

I'm highly disturbed by all this information, its basically acknowledgment that we've been lied to for decades while peoples careers were ruined for coming forward.

What could these devices be? Seem like we have 4 plausible choices.

1. Ours - we have filed patents for interesting technology - would we hazard our own planes and people ?
We cannot break the sound barrier without a boom, travel trans medium or achieve 500kts under water or mirror almost anything that was witnessed that day from a performance perspective.

2. Another countries? I seriously doubt it, but its possible. If its another countries - they can absolutely own us at any time.

3. They dont really exist- our best guys and gear are fools and garbage. Doesn't seem likely.

3. They came from elsewhere - Not a comforting thought given what happens when two radically different levels of tech societies meet.

 

[MolaKule]

If the data (altitudes, times, etc.) is accurate, then the acceleration is amazing. Still not buying the accuracy of the data...

Me neither.
...and assuming a constant acceleration (linear velocity) changing to a deceleration midway, yield a
maximum velocity of 104,895 mph at the midway point, and an acceleration of 12,250 g-forces
(see Appendix G). If one of the navy's jets of a similar size (F/A-18F at 18 tons) accelerated at
this rate, it would need 90 gigawatts of power...

Again, too many assumptions. They are using the equation for constant acceleration,
Vf^2 = Vi^2 +2A*(Xf - Xi), where V is velocity (a vector in x, y, z), A is acceleration (also a vector in x, y, z), and X are three dimensional distances; f is final and i is initial.

To calculate "G" forces you need a Mass in the equation since A = Force/Mass, so the above equation works out to be: A = [(Vf^2 - Vi^2)/2*(Xf - Xi) = F/M].

Another way of expressing g forces is

"Weight = mass × −g-force
The reason for the minus sign is that the actual force (i.e., measured weight) on an object produced by a g-force is in the opposite direction to the sign of the g-force, since in physics, weight is not the force that produces the acceleration, but rather the equal-and-opposite reaction force to it." Wiki.

I also have a problem with one of the radar system operator's stating that this radar system can determine the density of an aerial object, since density rho = M/Vol. displaced (in kg./m^3). The system may be able to estimate a "displaced volume" with a certain range of pixel changes, but again, unless the mass M of an object is determined, density cannot be determined.

 

[ZeeOSix]

They are using delta velocity over delta time to get avg acceleration to the mid point of travel where max velocity was assumed. Path of travel had zero to max to zero velocity, and had assumed constant acceleration to mid point and deceleration to end point. Acceleration and deceleration in that case can still be said to be an average X "Gs".

 

[UncleDave]

I also have a problem with one of the radar system operator's stating that this radar system can determine the density of an aerial object, since density rho = M/Vol. displaced (in kg./m^3). The system may be able to estimate a "displaced volume" with a certain range of pixel changes, but again, unless the mass M of an object is determined, density cannot be determined.

I'd imagine there is a window of density that can be estimated, but not certainly not much more than that.

If like to speak to guys that use the spy 1 to learn more about it.

I'm curious what the latency is in the composite presentation and how the ship to ship data is transmitted.

 

[MolaKule]

Some UAP phenomena have been satisfactorily explained using the sciences of physics (plasmas such as ball lightning), atmospheric chemistry and meteorology (clouds and ice crystal formation), and astrophysics (meteors, auroras, space debris, and planetary alignments).

I am all in for a full scientific investigation as was done in the Condon Report (https://documents.theblackvault.com/documents/AD0688541.pdf ); especially since we now have detection instrumentation that is much more advanced than what they had available in the '60's and '70's.

Much UAP phenomena has yet to be explained. The problem with determining the source of much of this phenomena is the lack of quality of eyewitness accounts and reputation of eyewitness accounts, sensors not designed for detecting UAPs, hysteria, unfounded presuppositions, baseless inferences, and a desire for fame and riches (books, movies, TV shows).

And one major problem that clouds a true scientific investigation of this issue is the injection of Paranormal Activity.

Allen Hynek of CUFOS in an interview said, “…The attitude we’re taking in the UFO community is that since we’re going to have scientists involved, we will push the physical approach as hard and as far as we can…instrumentation, physical evidence, photographs, radar records. If we are finally forced by the evidence itself to go into the paranormal, then we will.” Later he stated, …”a sort of parallel reality.” No definition of a parallel reality emerged from that interview.

What evidence would force anyone to go ‘into’ the paranormal? (He didn’t elaborate). What constitutes the “paranormal?” Of late, the paranormal has been defined as anything the paranormal investigators want it to be aka, ‘Paranormal Caught on Camera.’ How can you scientifically detect paranormal activity with EM and IR instrumentation unless you already know what the paranormal constitutes?

The point here is that if we are to scientifically investigate UFO phenomena, the issue of the paranormal obfuscates the issue, i.e., it only obscures or confuses the investigation.

 

[Surestick]

It's pretty unbelievable, but these are some of our best guys and some of, if not our best gear.


Its interesting to learn that a single composite presentation can be created from all the different radar sources in the fleet
That's quite a piece of code and from an engineering standpoint I have many questions...

It would seem that the equipment was indeed functioning correctly and that many eyes and equipment saw the same thing.

I'm highly disturbed by all this information, its basically acknowledgment that we've been lied to for decades while peoples careers were ruined for coming forward.

What could these devices be? Seem like we have 4 plausible choices.

1. Ours - we have filed patents for interesting technology - would we hazard our own planes and people ?
We cannot break the sound barrier without a boom, travel trans medium or achieve 500kts under water or mirror almost anything that was witnessed that day from a performance perspective.

2. Another countries? I seriously doubt it, but its possible. If its another countries - they can absolutely own us at any time.

3. They dont really exist- our best guys and gear are fools and garbage. Doesn't seem likely.

3. They came from elsewhere - Not a comforting thought given what happens when two radically different levels of tech societies meet.

There's a fourth option: We're not interpreting the sensor data correctly. Several objects spread out that show up on sensors intermittently could give the illusion of one object moving rapidly (much like how animation relies on a series of still images to create the illusion of movement). The argument against this is the variety of sensors involved here (radar(s), irst, video, and the mk. 1 eyeball), fooling one is likely relatively easy, doing the same to all is more of a feat.

 

[MolaKule]

There's a fourth option: We're not interpreting the sensor data correctly. Several objects spread out that show up on sensors intermittently could give the illusion of one object moving rapidly (much like how animation relies on a series of still images to create the illusion of movement). The argument against this is the variety of sensors involved here (radar(s), irst, video, and the mk. 1 eyeball), fooling one is likely relatively easy, doing the same to all is more of a feat.

If I understood the report correctly, the Nimitz had the Tic-Tac radar targets, but the Hawkeye and the F-18's did not. , but the later flight of F-18's did have ATFLIR contacts.

Here is a later analysis of the flight characteristics of the AUAV's:

"...The Princeton was equipped with the SPY-1 radar system which provided situational awareness of the surrounding airspace. The main incident occurred on 14 November 2004, but several days earlier, radar operators on the USS Princeton were detecting UAVs appearing on radar at about 80,000+ feet altitude to the north of CSG-11 in the vicinity of Santa Catalina and San Clemente Islands. Senior Chief Kevin Day informed us that the Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) radar systems had detected the UAVs in low Earth orbit before they dropped down to 80,000 feet [15]. The UAVs would arrive in groups of 10 to 20, subsequently drop down to 28,000 feet with a several hundred foot variation, and track south at a speed of about 100 knots [15]. Periodically, the UAVs would drop from 28,000 feet to sea level (approx. 50 feet), or under the surface, in 0.78 seconds. Without detailed radar data, it is not possible to know the acceleration of the UAVs as a function of time as they descended to the sea surface...The fact that these UAPs exhibited astonishing flight characteristics leaves one searching for other possible explanations. One very clever explanation suggested by one of the reviewers was that these UAPs could have been generated by the intersection of two or more laser or maser beams ionizing the air, which could create a visual image, an infrared image, as well as a radar reflective region possibly explaining much of the observations. While such an explanation could explain the visual, infrared and radar observations, it would not be able to explain either the suborbital radar returns from the ballistic missile defense (BMD) radar systems on the Princeton before the UAPs dropped to 80, 000 ft, or the sonar returns when the TicTac UAPs went into the ocean [15], both of which are not as well substantiated or documented as the other observations..."

 

[ZeeOSix]

Periodically, the UAVs would drop from 28,000 feet to sea level (approx. 50 feet), or under the surface, in 0.78 seconds. Without detailed radar data, it is not possible to know the acceleration of the UAVs as a function of time as they descended to the sea surface..."

0 velocity to whatever max velocity and back to 0 velocity in 0.78 second over 28,000 feet is mind blowing even if it was just done at a constant acceleration and deceleration rate.

 

[MolaKule]

The part that was most disturbing to me, assuming of course the info from reference 15 can be verified [15. Day, K. (U.S. Navy (ret.). Private Communication, 2019] was this:

"...Senior Chief Kevin Day informed us that the Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) radar systems had detected the UAVs in low Earth orbit before they dropped down to 80,000 feet [15]..."

If this could be verified through FOIA, then it could get very interesting.

 

[edyvw]

You guys.
It is a North Korean manned spacecraft coming back from a visit to the sun.

 

[UncleDave]

If I understood the report correctly, the Nimitz had the Tic-Tac radar targets, but the Hawkeye and the F-18's did not. , but the later flight of F-18's did have ATFLIR contacts.

Here is a later analysis of the flight characteristics of the AUAV's:

"...The Princeton was equipped with the SPY-1 radar system which provided situational awareness of the surrounding airspace. The main incident occurred on 14 November 2004, but several days earlier, radar operators on the USS Princeton were detecting UAVs appearing on radar at about 80,000+ feet altitude to the north of CSG-11 in the vicinity of Santa Catalina and San Clemente Islands. Senior Chief Kevin Day informed us that the Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) radar systems had detected the UAVs in low Earth orbit before they dropped down to 80,000 feet [15]. The UAVs would arrive in groups of 10 to 20, subsequently drop down to 28,000 feet with a several hundred foot variation, and track south at a speed of about 100 knots [15]. Periodically, the UAVs would drop from 28,000 feet to sea level (approx. 50 feet), or under the surface, in 0.78 seconds. Without detailed radar data, it is not possible to know the acceleration of the UAVs as a function of time as they descended to the sea surface...The fact that these UAPs exhibited astonishing flight characteristics leaves one searching for other possible explanations. One very clever explanation suggested by one of the reviewers was that these UAPs could have been generated by the intersection of two or more laser or maser beams ionizing the air, which could create a visual image, an infrared image, as well as a radar reflective region possibly explaining much of the observations. While such an explanation could explain the visual, infrared and radar observations, it would not be able to explain either the suborbital radar returns from the ballistic missile defense (BMD) radar systems on the Princeton before the UAPs dropped to 80, 000 ft, or the sonar returns when the TicTac UAPs went into the ocean [15], both of which are not as well substantiated or documented as the other observations..."

I saw this report but hadn't scanned it yet, thanks for posting it.

Another interesting snippet from it

The UAV was estimated to be approximately the same size as an F/A-18 Super Hornet, which has a
weight of about 32, 000 lbs, corresponding to 14, 550 kg. Since we want a minimal power estimate, we
took the acceleration as 5370 g and assumed that the UAV had a mass of 1000 kg. The UAV would
have then reached a maximum speed of about 46, 000mph during the descent, or 60 times the speed
of sound, at which point the required power peaked at a shocking 1100GW, which exceeds the total
nuclear power production of the United States by more than a factor of ten. For comparison, the
largest nuclear power plant in the United States, the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station in Arizona,
provides about 3.3GW of power for about four million people [16].

 

[MolaKule]

I saw this report but hadn't scanned it yet, thanks for posting it.

Another interesting snippet from it

The UAV was estimated to be approximately the same size as an F/A-18 Super Hornet, which has a
weight of about 32, 000 lbs, corresponding to 14, 550 kg. Since we want a minimal power estimate, we
took the acceleration as 5370 g and assumed that the UAV had a mass of 1000 kg. The UAV would
have then reached a maximum speed of about 46, 000mph during the descent, or 60 times the speed
of sound, at which point the required power peaked at a shocking 1100GW, which exceeds the total
nuclear power production of the United States by more than a factor of ten. For comparison, the
largest nuclear power plant in the United States, the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station in Arizona,
provides about 3.3GW of power for about four million people [16].

Again, all of these calculations are based upon (hinges on) an assumed time of approximately 3/4 second - which seems dubious.

Fuel aboard any craft, even if some type of advanced fuel, has mass. Add to that a conversion system to convert the energy from that fuel for a propulsion system, and the mass starts adding up; and we haven't even begun to add the mass for the overall structure, or assumed anti-gravity system, etc.

This leads me to conclude (FWIW) that this object must possess an almost zero mass, such as an object composed almost entirely of massless particles such as "photons."

From the above paper, Estimating Flight Characteristics of Anomalous Unidentified Aerial Vehicles in the 2004 Nimitz Encounter:

In this paper, we have worked under the assumption that these UAPs were physical craft as described by the pilots. The fact that these UAPs exhibited astonishing flight characteristics leaves one searching for other possible explanations. One very clever explanation suggested by one of the reviewers was that these UAPs could have been generated by the intersection of two or more laser or maser beams ionizing the air, which could create a visual image, an infrared image, as well as a radar reflective region possibly explaining much of the observation..."

",,,While such an explanation could explain the visual, infrared and radar observations, it would not be able to explain either the suborbital radar returns from the ballistic missile defense (BMD) radar systems on the Princeton before the UAPs dropped to 80, 000 ft, or the sonar returns when the TicTac UAPs went into the ocean [15], both of which are not as well substantiated or documented as the other observations..." Again, the existence of a number of UAPs dropping from a suborbital motion down to 80,000 feet have not been substantiated as of yet.

 

[UncleDave]

Sure we have no idea what if any mass these objects had and are guessing.

Has there ever been a demonstrated instance where photonic projections illicit radar returns, and sustain a visual appearance in flight while being chased?

Photonic projections cease to be plausible (if they are anyway) in any underwater tracking scenario.

 

[ZeeOSix]

From the above paper, Estimating Flight Characteristics of Anomalous Unidentified Aerial Vehicles in the 2004 Nimitz Encounter:

In this paper, we have worked under the assumption that these UAPs were physical craft as described by the pilots. The fact that these UAPs exhibited astonishing flight characteristics leaves one searching for other possible explanations. One very clever explanation suggested by one of the reviewers was that these UAPs could have been generated by the intersection of two or more laser or maser beams ionizing the air, which could create a visual image, an infrared image, as well as a radar reflective region possibly explaining much of the observation..."

Where would the source of these "two or more" lasers be that would be undetected? And could they really be synchronized so perfectly to create a false image over the entire motion field that these objects were observed to cover? That seems just as far (or more) fetched as them being real.

"The fact that these UAPs exhibited astonishing flight characteristics leaves one searching for other possible explanations."

That's because they are trying to explain it solely based on what human's know about his physical world and technology at this time.

 

[Cujet]

If the data (altitudes, times, etc.) is accurate, then the acceleration is amazing.

More amazing still is the utter lack of nuclear-blast levels of shockwave.

I call "nonsense" on the entire thing. It's a magic show of some sort, engineered to fool the observer. The fact that we don't know how it's done does not mean it is not being done.

As mentioned above, a light show can't be seen on radar. However, if something were positioned to reflect radar at specific times and locations, say a drone that maneuvers to a non stealth position at the right time......

One clue may be the splash in the water. The drone could be designed to sink, preventing it's recovery. While another "pops up" somewhere else. Yet the observer is led to believe the twins are one and the same. A trick as old as magic itself.